Did Stephen err in Acts 7?

[Deleted member 13126]

I'm curious to hear from you all on the topic of Stephen and Acts 7. Is Stephen's speech considered preaching, given his monologue, ~100 or so OT references being proclaimed and taught with authority to a group of individuals? In what way is Stephen to be an example to ordinary Christian men, if any?

For context, I'm wrestling with distinctions such as gifted brethren and pastoral interns. Even within denominations, sessions or associations there seems to be a spectrum of opinions about whether or not teaching or gospel proclamation should be done outside of the four walls of the church and if so, by whom.

To be clear, I'm not wrestling with NCT or anything like that. I think anyone doing this should absolutely be covenanting with a local body of believers as members in good standing, in full submission to their elders, etc., as opposed to self-willed, self-called men championing parachurch ministries. On the contrary, I'm of the 'ask permission' rather than 'ask forgiveness' persuasion, since whatever doesn't come from faith would be sin. Just seeking to understand where these distinctions exist and if there is biblical or confessional warrant for them.

Any information along these lines would be most welcome.

 

[JD]

Whether it was preaching necessarily I'll leave to others, but did he err in speaking? No. He was taken by force and brought before lawful authorities and spoke when questioned. He did not raise himself up and command and audience but rather testified to the truth of the Gospel when asked by the high priest and confronted with what he surely knew would be his death.

We're not told that there were any *regenerate* believers in the audience, but on the contrary they could not withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking. (Acts 6:10).

Indeed, he freely offers the gospel to them (Acts 7:51) but when they heard these things they were enraged, and they ground their teeth at him. (Acts 7:54) ... [and] they cried out with a loud voice and stopped their ears and rushed together at him. Then they cast him out of the city and stoned him. (Acts 7:57-58).

I am reminded of Philippians 1:27-29 and Romans 10-11. Israel was the people of God until they rejected His Gospel. Before the high priest and the council was absolutely the place to proclaim the Gospel.

 

[Alexander Suarez]

I'm curious to hear from you all on the topic of Stephen and Acts 7. Is Stephen's speech considered preaching, given his monologue, ~100 or so OT references being proclaimed and taught with authority to a group of individuals? In what way is Stephen to be an example to ordinary Christian men, if any?

For context, I'm wrestling with distinctions such as gifted brethren and pastoral interns. Even within denominations, sessions or associations there seems to be a spectrum of opinions about whether or not teaching or gospel proclamation should be done outside of the four walls of the church and if so, by whom.

To be clear, I'm not wrestling with NCT or anything like that. I think anyone doing this should absolutely be covenanting with a local body of believers as members in good standing, in full submission to their elders, etc., as opposed to self-willed, self-called men championing parachurch ministries. On the contrary, I'm of the 'ask permission' rather than 'ask forgiveness' persuasion, since whatever doesn't come from faith would be sin. Just seeking to understand where these distinctions exist and if there is biblical or confessional warrant for them.

Any information along these lines would be most welcome.

C.H.,

In relation to the specific question, here is how one has understood the event:

“Stephen did no more (Acts ch. 7) in his apology than any witnesses of Christ convened before rulers may doe who are obliged to be ready always to give an answer to every one who asks them of the hope that is in them, with meekness and fear, 1 Pet. 3:15, yea though it were a woman who yet may not preach, 1 Cor. 14:34.” (Samuel Rutherford, Due Right of Presbyteries, 165).

In relation to the broader question of what is preaching and who may preach, I recommend the following chapter from Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici:

CHAP. V. Containing part of the Third Proposition. Proving, That none may do the Work of the Ministry without Ordination.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

Hi Alex, and thanks for referring me to that text. I'm not familiar with it. Having read through it briefly, does this paragraph in the text you've cited sway you one way or the other? Emphasis mine.

By the Preaching of the Word we understand an authori∣tative explication and application of Scripture, for exhor∣tation, edification, and comfort, to a Congregation met to∣gether for the solemn worship of God, in the stead and place of Christ; and we desire that every branch of this description may be well weighed in the balance of the Sanctuary.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I propose it is a question of terms and of formality. Stephen was a gifted communicator, as is apparent from Act.6:9-10. His formal ordination as a deacon, v6, may have been (as it sometimes, not always is) a stepping-stone toward further recognition and formal ordination as a minister. Typically, this is conceived in the case of Philip, whose later work for the church is seen as evidence of his office as a minister (evangelist). In the case of Stephen, what we definitely see is that his Spirit-endowment, which made him well qualified for deacon service, overflowed to making him an effective disputant.

It was this facility on behalf of Christ that made him enemies (or increased their rage) because of his success, first as an agent of mercy, then as one mighty in the Scriptures. The context of Stephen's speech in Act.7 is his public trial defense--actually a counter suit--where he makes trial of his accusers. In an informal sense, there can be no doubt this was a case of pure preaching-the-law. Can we call what he did "preaching" in a formal sense? His testimony never gets so far as is might have, if he had been allowed to finish and close by proclaiming Christ beyond the little contained in v52. He does not even get to the meaning of the Lord's murder at their hands, or the resurrection, before the assembly rushed him. Whatever it might have been as it was, the speech came short of preaching the gospel along with the law.

But more importantly: regardless of what it was formally, or what Stephen had achieved as to ordination when he was martyred, Stephen's defense was taken over by God himself (as a formally ordained minister's preaching is promised to be) and was used to a similar effect as preaching proper. In this event we find an occasion where God takes control and uses his servant even perhaps beyond his formal calling in office. There is a general calling, a general office of the believer; wherein we all are bidden to be "ready" (1Pet.3:15) to bear witness to our hope, with whatever preparation we have be it great or small. If God wills, he may take and use it in a surprisingly effective way.

God has not promised to powerfully take over every exercise of our speech, even done in faith and in his name. He has promised to be regular and nourishing in his spiritual provision through his appointed worship, through his appointed means, through his authorized representative (minister) and institution (church), where true faith believes his word. That is the standard setting for preaching and its purpose, besides a strictly evangelistic condition. Yet, whatever term we choose for describing the ordinary Christian's witness, skilled or unskilled, the convicting effect comes not from the office but from God himself directly, as he takes over the instrument of his word.

 

[Alexander Suarez]

Hi Alex, and thanks for referring me to that text. I'm not familiar with it. Having read through it briefly, does this paragraph in the text you've cited sway you one way or the other? Emphasis mine.

Hello C.H., I think what they say shortly thereafter qualifies their original statement:

The object of this work is a Congregation met together for the Solemn worship of God, 1 Cor. 14.23. when you are come together into one place; It is true, that the word ought to be preach'd to Infidels, Mat. 28. Mar. 16. Go into all the world; but the principal object of this work is the Church; Prophecy is not (i.e., not so much) for them that believe not, but for them that believe, 1 Cor. 14.22. Hence it is, that God hath set his Officers in the Church, 1 Cor. 12.28. For the Church, Eph. 4.12.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

Hello C.H., I think what they say shortly thereafter qualifies their original statement:

I noticed this! I wonder if this is what is meant by 'the work of an evangelist' (2. Tim. 4:5). It is interesting to read that the principal object of the work is the Church and how it continues that 'Prophecy is not for them that believe not, but for them that believe'. I might be making an incorrect mental distinction between 'Prophecy' and 'Gospel'. Still, this is a great text for me to go through once or twice. Thanks again for sharing it.

I'd welcome any other thoughts or information folks have to share as well.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

I propose it is a question of terms and of formality. Stephen was a gifted communicator, as is apparent from Act.6:9-10. His formal ordination as a deacon, v6, may have been (as it sometimes, not always is) a stepping-stone toward further recognition and formal ordination as a minister. Typically, this is conceived in the case of Philip, whose later work for the church is seen as evidence of his office as a minister (evangelist). In the case of Stephen, what we definitely see is that his Spirit-endowment, which made him well qualified for deacon service, overflowed to making him an effective disputant.

It was this facility on behalf of Christ that made him enemies (or increased their rage) because of his success, first as an agent of mercy, then as one mighty in the Scriptures. The context of Stephen's speech in Act.7 is his public trial defense--actually a counter suit--where he makes trial of his accusers. In an informal sense, there can be no doubt this was a case of pure preaching-the-law. Can we call what he did "preaching" in a formal sense? His testimony never gets so far as is might have, if he had been allowed to finish and close by proclaiming Christ beyond the little contained in v52. He does not even get to the meaning of the Lord's murder at their hands, or the resurrection, before the assembly rushed him. Whatever it might have been as it was, the speech came short of preaching the gospel along with the law.

But more importantly: regardless of what it was formally, or what Stephen had achieved as to ordination when he was martyred, Stephen's defense was taken over by God himself (as a formally ordained minister's preaching is promised to be) and was used to a similar effect as preaching proper. In this event we find an occasion where God takes control and uses his servant even perhaps beyond his formal calling in office. There is a general calling, a general office of the believer; wherein we all are bidden to be "ready" (1Pet.3:15) to bear witness to our hope, with whatever preparation we have be it great or small. If God wills, he may take and use it in a surprisingly effective way.

God has not promised to powerfully take over every exercise of our speech, even done in faith and in his name. He has promised to be regular and nourishing in his spiritual provision through his appointed worship, through his appointed means, through his authorized representative (minister) and institution (church), where true faith believes his word. That is the standard setting for preaching and its purpose, besides a strictly evangelistic condition. Yet, whatever term we choose for describing the ordinary Christian's witness, skilled or unskilled, the convicting effect comes not from the office but from God himself directly, as he takes over the instrument of his word.

Just wanted to say thank you for the thorough reply. This was very helpful.

 

[davejonescue]

To me it is ridiculous to think any believer should be prohibited from sharing the Gospel outside the confines of the church building. Should unordained believers be starting para-churches or formal extensions of their local body without permission? Obviously not; but all saints should be involved in ministry of some sort. Ephesians 4:12 says the church is a conduit to the training of the whole congregation for ministry, not just a select few who will formally serve the church within the walls. There is a lost generation of people who will never set foot inside a church; and Jesus gave an example of both ministering in the temple, and in the world. Then he gave all disciples the Great Commission. I think one of the reasons America is the way it is, because too few Christians actually engage the culture with the Gospel, and many more think they do this by simply asking an unbeliever to church. This is not about subjecting to ecclesiastical authority, but instead a commission from an authority that supersedes that of ruling elders.

"But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;" (1 Peter 2:9)

 

[Deleted member 13126]

To me it is ridiculous to think any believer should be prohibited from sharing the Gospel outside the confines of the church building. Should unordained believers be starting para-churches or formal extensions of their local body without permission? Obviously not; but all saints should be involved in ministry of some sort. Ephesians 4:12 says the church is a conduit to the training of the whole congregation for ministry, not just a select few who will formally serve the church within the walls. There is a lost generation of people who will never set foot inside a church; and Jesus gave an example of both ministering in the temple, and in the world. Then he gave all disciples the Great Commission. I think one of the reasons America is the way it is, because too few Christians actually engage the culture with the Gospel, and many more think they do this by simply asking an unbeliever to church. This is not about subjecting to ecclesiastical authority, but instead a commission from an authority that supersedes that of ruling elders.

Overall, I agree. I came to know the Lord thanks to an evangelistic outreach group that was outside of the four walls of a church, so much of what you've written here are things I am deeply sympathetic towards.

The laborers are indeed few. I've heard of elders/pastors/ministers who express that they feel no calling or responsibility to go out into the highways and hedges to compel folks to come in, unfortunately. I know of some others who simply don't believe it is effective.

However, I think where some folks take issue is with authoritative teaching, proclamation or monologue that may be viewed as 'preaching' (one-to-many) vs. evangelistic witness (one-to-one). Personally, I think today we have folks blogging, podcasting, or even posting on forums like this one, and that can often tick a lot of those aforementioned boxes (authoritative teaching, proclamation, one-to-many, etc.). The waters are definitely muddy, to my eyes, hence this post.

Thanks for weighing in.

 

[MyCrows]

To me it is ridiculous to think any believer should be prohibited from sharing the Gospel outside the confines of the church building.

 

[Ben Zartman]

I think I'm a minority in the Baptist camp, but I believe any work of formal preaching or evangelizing requires that a man be sent, whether to go door-to-door, as some do, or "street preach," whatever form that takes, or go as a missionary. There's a contingent in my church that's all enthusiastic about "goin' evangelizing," and they continually try to recruit me. They wish to "spread the Gospel" by going knocking on doors, or "street preaching" in the park, but none are ordained ministers, and several times now the person most "on fire" has crashed and burned: two excommunicated; one departed in anger, none ever commissioned by the church or ordained or sent.

I point out that for the Gospel to be heard, a preacher must be sent, according to Scripture, and the person charged with the phrase "do the work of an evangelist," was an ordained minister. Now I don't say that we must not all be ready to give an answer, and to speak of Christ if the opportunity arises, but this notion that it is every Christian's duty to go out and make it his business to purposefully evangelize is not conformable to Reformed ecclesiology.

If knocking on doors is God's model for proclaiming the Gospel, then the church must send ordained ministers to do it. If street preaching is a legitimate model for evangelism, then the church must equip and send ministers to do it. "How beautiful are the feet...." is talking about preachers who are sent by a church.

That's not to say that God cannot or does not call sinners to Himself by means of un-ordained street preachers or informal evangelists, but it's not the model He prescribed, and it's not the one He has particularly promised to bless.

 

[MyCrows]

but it's not the model He prescribed, and it's not the one He has particularly promised to bless.

How does this square with the beginning of Acts 8?

Acts 8:1-4

Notice who wasn't dispersed.

I think to say that he hasn't promised to bless the faithful proclamation of the gospel by average Joe believers is a bit overzealous.

 

[Alexander Suarez]

How does this square with the beginning of Acts 8?

Acts 8:1-4

Notice who wasn't dispersed.

I think to say that he hasn't promised to bless the faithful proclamation of the gospel by average Joe believer is a bit overzealous.

Mike,

In answer to your question, how does this square with Acts 8:1-4, I offer you the following excerpt from Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici:

Except[ion]. But the text [Acts 8:1] saith expressly, all were scattered except the apostles.

Ans[wer]. All must be understood either of all the believers, or all the teachers and church officers in the church of Jerusalem, except believers; but it cannot be understood of all the believers that they were scattered: and therefore it must be understood that all the teachers and church officers were scattered, except the apostles. That all the believers were not scattered will easily appear: For, 1. 'Tis said that Paul broke into houses, "haling men and women, committed them to prison," ver. 3, and this he did in Jerusalem, Acts xxvi. 10; therefore all could not be scattered. 2. "They that were scattered, preached the word," ver. 4, which all the members, men and women, could not do; therefore by all that were scattered must of necessity be meant, not the body of believers in the church, but only the officers of the church. 3. If all the believers were scattered, to what end did the apostles tarry at Jerusalem—to preach to the walls? this we cannot imagine.

 

[MyCrows]

Mike,

In answer to your question, how does this square with Acts 8:1-4, I offer you the following excerpt from Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici:

I grant that is a possible interpretation of the text, but is it a necessary one?

Why would only the church officers flee, and why all of them?

Isn't it their job to be an example to their flock, edify the local body of Christ via their gifts, and protect them from false teachers? How can they do that if they had a mass exodus out of their local church?

I think a more natural understanding of the text is that all manner of believers were scattered, and a large number at that.

 

[Alexander Suarez]

I grant that is a possible interpretation of the text, but is it a necessary one?

Why would only the church officers flee, and why all of them?

Isn't it their job to be an example to their flock, edify the local body of Christ via their gifts, and protect them from false teachers? How can they do that if they had a mass exodus out of their local church?

I think a more natural understanding of the text is that all manner of believers were scattered, and a large number at that.

Mike,

Here is a fuller defense of the previous understanding of Acts 8:1-4 for your further consideration:

Object[ion]. 6. Private Christians, Act. 8.4. & 11.19. when they were scattered abroad, went every where preaching the word, Therefore gifted men though not ordained may also preach the Word.

Answ[er]. This instance which is much insisted upon by many, is not of strength to conclude the lawfulnesse of preaching by gifted, un-ordained persons; For,

First, Some allowing these scattered Christians to have been private persons, yet do rationally distinguish between a Church constituted, and a Church scattered and dissolved, between what may be done in a Church gathered, and in an ordinary way, and in the gathering of a Church, and in the case of necessity: It is not recorded that these did preach while they were at Jerusalem in a settled Church, but when they were scattered, then they went every where preaching; what warrant soever this instance may give to persons uncalled to preach amongst Indians, and in places where no Churches nor Ministers are, yet can it not warrant them in their preaching in our Churches, in which Ministers are or may easily be had.

Secondly, It may justly be denied, that the Christians here spoken of were private Christians, it may be asserted that they were men in Office, and had commission to do what they did. This appears,

1. From the first verse, where it is said, At that time there was a great persecution against the Church which was at Jerusalem, and they were all scattered abroad throughout the Regions of Judea and Samaria, except the Apostles; These All that were scattered must be either All the Teachers and Church-Officers, or all the Believers; not all the believers, for it is said in the 3. verse, That Saul made havock of the Church, entering into every house, and haling men and women, committed them to prison. And Act. 11.22. there is express mention made of the Church at Jerusalem, notwithstanding the persecution. Had all the Believers been scattered what should the Apostles have done at Jerusalem, their tarrying would have been dangerous to themselves and useless to the Church. And therefore we judge that by all is meant all the Church-Officers (of whom there were many at Jerusalem) were scattered except the Apostles, and when they were scattered they went every where preaching the Word.

To make the Interpretation clearer observe,

First, That the word All is used here with an exceptive particle, which necessitates it to be meant not of believers but of men in office; for if all relate to believers, then it will follow that there was not one Believer left in Jerusalem except the Apostles. The particle with the Genitive case in the New Testament, being always exceptive to the utmost, as appears Joh. 8.10. Act. 15.28. & 22.22. Mar. 12.32. but this we are sure is false, as hath been already proved.

Secondly, That it is said, That they that were scattered went every where preaching the Word; It is not said teaching which may be actus charitatis, but Preaching which is actus officij; How can they preach except they be sent, Rom. 10. The Reverend Assembly of Divines in their Answer to the Reasons of the Dissenting Brethren, observe, that those that were scattered went about εὐαγγελιζόμενοι τὸν λόγον, that εὐαγγελίζω refers to the act of men in office, and they desire the Brethren to produce one Scripture where εὐαγγελιζόμενοι τὸν λόγον is used concerning any that are not Preachers by Office, they bring many where it is used concerning those that were in Office, even by the pen-man of this history, and conclude, that these εὐαγγελιζόμενοι τὸν λόγον had their Commission to preach before this persecution, though the persecution occasioned their preaching in Judea and other places.

Thirdly, Act. 8.5. there is but one of this scattered number named, and he was a person in office, to wit Philip, not the Apostle, but who is numbered among the Deacons, Act. 6. and called an Evangelist, Act. 21 8. By the singling out of this one who was in Office, we may judge that the rest were persons in office as well as he.

Fourthly, 'Tis probable, that these that were scattered did baptize as well as preach, which we gather from Act. 11.26. It is said there, There was a Church settled at Antioch, which could not be unless they were first baptized, but there were none in Antioch to baptize them, if they of the dispersion did not; for Barnabas, Agabus, and other Prophets came not to Antioch till the Church was founded, Act. 11.25, 26, 27. and this Church of Antioch is expressly said to be founded by the scattered brethren, Act. 21.19. now baptism is to be performed only by men in office, Mat. 28.19.

Fifthly, These scattered brethren are said to be Prophets and Teachers, Act. 13.1. where mention is made of Lucius of Cyrene, who in all probability was one of the scattered Preachers, as appears Act. 11.19, 20. where it is said, That some of these scattered were men of Cyrene.

If it be said, that there is no where mention made of the Ordination of, or any commission given to these scattered brethren: It is answered, that it doth not follow that therefore they had none, because none is mentioned. It is sufficient for us that there are Scripture-Reasons to persuade us that they had a Commission; They did a work peculiar to Officers of the Church, as hath been proved, which godly men out of Office durst not have done; they had success, and the blessing of God upon their labours, which he promiseth not to those that go in an evil way, as hath been demonstrated: But let thus much suffice for this instance. (Source: https://archive.org/details/jusdivinumminist00lond/page/n138/mode/1up)

 

[MyCrows]

Interesting. I have never heard this portion of Acts explained to refer to church officers. I'll have to do some further study on this.

Thank you for the response!

I do make a distinction between personal evangelism and preaching. I don't believe they are the same thing.

 

[MyCrows]

I'm not trying to be contrary, but what about cases like when John Bunyan was arrested and subsequently imprisoned for preaching without ordination? Honestly curious.

 

[Alexander Suarez]

I'm not trying to be contrary, but what about cases like when John Bunyan was arrested and subsequently imprisoned for preaching without ordination? Honestly curious.

Mike,

If you have not read the article, "Lay-Preaching" by R. L. Dabney, I'd highly recommend it. It addresses the lay preaching of D. L. Moody (and others) along with what ought to be done in such cases.

Kind regards,

 

[MyCrows]

Mike,

If you have not read the article, "Lay-Preaching" by R. L. Dabney, I'd highly recommend it. It addresses the lay preaching of D. L. Moody (and others) along with what ought to be done in such cases.

Kind regards,

Thanks, I'll check it out in a bit.

 

[MyCrows]

Mike,

If you have not read the article, "Lay-Preaching" by R. L. Dabney, I'd highly recommend it. It addresses the lay preaching of D. L. Moody (and others) along with what ought to be done in such cases.

Kind regards,

Hmm. The PDF wouldn't open. It's no big deal, but I think your file might be corrupted.

Scratch that, I got it. Don't know what I did the first go round.

 

[Alexander Suarez]

Hmm. The PDF wouldn't open. It's no big deal, but I think your file might be corrupted.

Scratch that, I got it. Don't know what I did the first go round.

See if this link works better:

Discussions : Dabney, Robert Lewis, 1820-1898 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Vol. 4 has imprint: Mexico, Mo. : Crescent Book House, 1897

archive.org

 

[CovenantPatriot87]

I'm curious to hear from you all on the topic of Stephen and Acts 7. Is Stephen's speech considered preaching, given his monologue, ~100 or so OT references being proclaimed and taught with authority to a group of individuals? In what way is Stephen to be an example to ordinary Christian men, if any?

For context, I'm wrestling with distinctions such as gifted brethren and pastoral interns. Even within denominations, sessions or associations there seems to be a spectrum of opinions about whether or not teaching or gospel proclamation should be done outside of the four walls of the church and if so, by whom.

To be clear, I'm not wrestling with NCT or anything like that. I think anyone doing this should absolutely be covenanting with a local body of believers as members in good standing, in full submission to their elders, etc., as opposed to self-willed, self-called men championing parachurch ministries. On the contrary, I'm of the 'ask permission' rather than 'ask forgiveness' persuasion, since whatever doesn't come from faith would be sin. Just seeking to understand where these distinctions exist and if there is biblical or confessional warrant for them.

Any information along these lines would be most welcome.

Do keep in mind based on the context preceeding chapter 7, Stephen is presenting his defence before the sanhedim. You could say, he is defending himself (and representing himself) in his own church court case:

Act 6:12-13 KJV 12 And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him, and caught him, and brought him to the council, 13 And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law:

I don't see how this is a sermon or a even preaching, but the way I do see it is this: you better know your Bible well when defending yourself in judicial cases which involve you against corrupt ministers and presbyteries.

This council had been warned by the Lord himself before to which they took no heed and so their judicial harding had begun with Stephen being the faithful instrument:

Mat 23:34 KJV Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:

 

[Contra_Mundum]

you better know your Bible well when defending yourself in judicial cases which involve you against corrupt ministers and presbyteries.

The men of the council were "cut to the heart," Act.7:54, because they knew the Scriptures and their history, and the word made them own their guilt (which they made good to suppress).

JGMachen knew his Bible, and to some degree so did the corrupt ministers and presbytery who brought him to trial--which is why the court forbade him recourse to Holy Scripture to defend himself.

In Stephen's case, I suppose the word had one gracious effect we certainly know of, besides all the obvious condemnation it accomplished. Saul was not yet won to Christ, but he would be because the divine call was effectual in his case. His conviction led him at last to repentance.

In Machen's case, what word of conviction and comfort was available to the ears of those on the kangaroo court who brooked no challenge to their foregone conclusion? None, for they refused to hear a single syllable of it. And in so doing, prevented the lawful means by which one or more might have been converted if not preventing the deed.

I agree, you should know your Bible well to defend yourself if need be, for it's possible you will have the chance. Or, they may cut your tongue out.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

I'm curious to hear from you all on the topic of Stephen and Acts 7.

Acts 7

Easy-to-Read Version

​

Stephen’s Speech​

7 The high priest said to Stephen, “Is all this true?” 2 Stephen answered, “My Jewish fathers and brothers, listen to me. Our great and glorious God appeared to Abraham, our ancestor, when he was in Mesopotamia. This was before he lived in Haran. 3 God said to him, ‘Leave your country and your people, and go to the country I will show you.’[a]
4 “So Abraham left the country of Chaldea. He went to live in Haran. After his father died, God sent him to this place, where you live now. 5 But God did not give Abraham any of this land, not even a foot of it. But God promised that in the future he would give Abraham this land for himself and for his children. This was before Abraham had any children.
6 “This is what God said to him: ‘Your descendants will live in another country. They will be strangers. The people there will make them slaves and mistreat them for 400 years. 7 But I will punish the nation that made them slaves.’[c] And God also said, ‘After those things happen, your people will come out of that country. Then they will worship me here in this place.’[d]
8 “God made an agreement with Abraham; the sign for this agreement was circumcision. And so when Abraham had a son, he circumcised him when he was eight days old. His son’s name was Isaac. Isaac also circumcised his son Jacob. And Jacob did the same for his sons, who became the twelve great ancestors of our people.
9 “These ancestors of ours became jealous of their brother Joseph and sold him to be a slave in Egypt. But God was with him 10 and saved him from all his troubles. Pharaoh was the king of Egypt then. He liked Joseph and respected him because of the wisdom God gave him. Pharaoh gave Joseph the job of being a governor of Egypt. He even let him rule over all the people in Pharaoh’s house. 11 But all the land of Egypt and of Canaan became dry. It became so dry that food could not grow, and the people suffered very much. Our people could not find anything to eat.
12 “But Jacob heard that there was food in Egypt. So he sent our people there. This was their first trip to Egypt. 13 Then they went there a second time. This time Joseph told his brothers who he was. And Pharaoh learned about Joseph’s family. 14 Then Joseph sent some men to tell Jacob, his father, to come to Egypt. He also invited all his relatives, a total of 75 people. 15 So Jacob went down to Egypt. He and our other ancestors lived there until they died. 16 Later, their bodies were moved to Shechem, where they were put in a tomb. It was the same tomb that Abraham had bought in Shechem from the sons of Hamor. He paid them with silver.
17 “The number of our people in Egypt grew. There were more and more of our people there. The promise that God made to Abraham was soon to come true. 18 Then a different king began to rule Egypt, one who knew nothing about Joseph. 19 This king tricked our people. He treated them badly, making them leave their children outside to die.
20 “This was the time when Moses was born. He was a very beautiful child, and for three months his parents took care of him at home. 21 When they put him outside, Pharaoh’s daughter took him. She raised him as her own son. 22 The Egyptians taught Moses everything they knew. He was powerful in all he said and did.
23 “When Moses was about 40 years old, he decided to visit his own people, the people of Israel. 24 He saw one of them being mistreated by an Egyptian, so he defended him. Moses hit the Egyptian to pay him back for hurting the man. He hit him so hard that it killed him. 25 Moses thought that his people would understand that God was using him to save them. But they did not understand.
26 “The next day, Moses saw two of his own people fighting. He tried to make peace between them. He said, ‘Men, you are brothers! Why are you trying to hurt each other?’ 27 The man who was hurting the other one pushed Moses away and said to him, ‘Did anyone say you could be our ruler and judge? 28 Will you kill me just as you killed that Egyptian yesterday?’[e] 29 When Moses heard him say this, he left Egypt. He went to live in the land of Midian, where he was a stranger. During the time he lived there, he had two sons.
30 “Forty years later Moses was in the desert near Mount Sinai. An angel appeared to him in the flame of a burning bush. 31 When Moses saw this, he was amazed. He went near to look closer at it. He heard a voice; it was the Lord’s. 32 The Lord said, ‘I am the same God your ancestors had—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’[f] Moses began to shake with fear. He was afraid to look at the bush.
33 “The Lord said to him, ‘Take off your sandals, because the place where you are now standing is holy ground. 34 I have seen my people suffer much in Egypt. I have heard my people crying and have come down to save them. Come now, Moses, I am sending you back to Egypt.’[g]
35 “This Moses was the one his people said they did not want. They said, ‘Did anyone say you could be our ruler and judge?’[h] But he is the one God sent to be a ruler and savior. God sent him with the help of an angel, the one Moses saw in the burning bush. 36 So Moses led the people out of Egypt. He worked wonders and miraculous signs in Egypt, at the Red Sea, and then in the desert for 40 years.
37 “This is the same Moses who said these words to the people of Israel: ‘God will give you a prophet. That prophet will come from among your own people. He will be like me.’[i] 38 This same Moses was with the gathering of God’s people in the desert. He was with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and he was with our ancestors. He received life-giving words from God to give to us.
39 “But our ancestors did not want to obey Moses. They rejected him. They wanted to go back to Egypt again. 40 They said to Aaron, ‘Moses led us out of the country of Egypt. But we don’t know what has happened to him. So make some gods to go before us and lead us.’[j] 41 So the people made an idol that looked like a calf. Then they brought sacrifices to it. They were very happy with what they had made with their own hands. 42 But God turned against them and let them continue worshipping the army of false gods in the sky. This is what God says in the book that contains what the prophets wrote:
‘People of Israel, you did not bring me blood offerings and sacrifices
in the desert for 40 years;
43 You carried with you the tent for worshipping Moloch
and the image of the star of your god Rephan.
These were the idols you made to worship.
So I will send you away beyond Babylon.’
44 “The Holy Tent[k] was with our ancestors in the desert. God told Moses how to make this tent. He made it like the plan that God showed him. 45 Later, Joshua led our ancestors to capture the lands of the other nations. Our people went in and God made the other people go out. When our people went into this new land, they took with them this same tent. Our people received this tent from their fathers, and our people kept it until the time of David. 46 God was very pleased with David. He asked God to let him build a Temple for the people of Jacob.[l] 47 But Solomon was the one who built the Temple.
48 “But the Most High God does not live in houses built by human hands. This is what the prophet[m] writes:
49 ‘The Lord says, Heaven is my throne,
and the earth is where I rest my feet.
So do you think you can build a house for me?
Do I need a place to rest?
50 Remember, I made all these things!’”
51 Then Stephen said, “You stubborn Jewish leaders! You refuse to give your hearts to God or even listen to him. You are always against what the Holy Spirit wants you to do. That’s how your ancestors were, and you are just like them! 52 They persecuted every prophet who ever lived. They even killed those who long ago said that the Righteous One would come. And now you have turned against that Righteous One and killed him. 53 You are the people who received God’s law, which he gave you through his angels. But you don’t obey it!”

Stephen Is Killed​

54 When those in the council meeting heard this, they became very angry. They were so mad they were grinding their teeth at him. 55 But Stephen was full of the Holy Spirit. He looked up into heaven and saw the glory of God. And he saw Jesus standing at God’s right side. 56 Stephen said, “Look! I see heaven open. And I see the Son of Man standing at God’s right side.”
57 Everyone there started shouting loudly, covering their ears with their hands. Together they all ran at Stephen. 58 They took him out of the city and began throwing stones at him. The men who told lies against Stephen gave their coats to a young man named Saul. 59 As they were throwing the stones at him, Stephen was praying. He said, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!” 60 He fell on his knees and shouted, “Lord, don’t blame them for this sin!” These were his last words before he died.

Footnotes​

1. Acts 7:3 Quote from Gen. 12:1.
2. Acts 7:4 Chaldea Or “Babylonia,” a land in the southern part of Mesopotamia. See verse 2.
3. Acts 7:7 Quote from Gen. 15:13-14.
4. Acts 7:7 Quote from Gen. 15:14; Ex. 3:12.
5. Acts 7:28 Quote from Ex. 2:14.
6. Acts 7:32 Quote from Ex. 3:6.
7. Acts 7:34 Quote from Ex. 3:5-10.
8. Acts 7:35 Quote from Ex. 2:14.
9. Acts 7:37 Quote from Deut. 18:15.
10. Acts 7:40 Quote from Ex. 32:1.
11. Acts 7:44 Holy Tent Literally, “Tent of the Testimony.” See “ Holy Tent” in the Word List.
12. Acts 7:46 for the people of Jacob Some Greek copies have “for the God of Jacob.”
13. Acts 7:48 prophet Isaiah, who spoke for God about 740–700 B.C.